Discussions (12,142)

Tagging it up ~ some suggestions for tagging your images.

view profile

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

You can find some specifics examples of how people are using tags in the tagography thread.

a bunch of flickr users have made some suggestions for tags in this thread, and i've tried to compile a thorough a list as possible here, from those suggestions ~ feel free to pick and choose from this list as you see fit:

~the 'medium' tags~

photo: this one is easy .. the images that come out of your camera

drawing:images that you draw, if you draw .. or if you upload a snagged drawing

painting: like drawings, except with paint.

cg: computer generated. these come out of photoshopish and 3d programs.


~ the 'genre' tags ~

cameraphone: images taken with {and possibly uploaded from} a cameraphone.

montage: multiple images juxtaposed

portrait: an image of a person or group of people.

group: include on a portrait of a group of people.

landscape: an outdoor image, focuses on the environment.

"still life": an image of an inanimate or group of inanimate objects

abstract: an abstract image. non-figurative.

propaganda: politically motivated image, typically includes text.

comic: sequential art!

~the 'subject' tags~

"live music": a photograph of a musician or musicians in performance.

animal: an image with an animal as its subject.

me: an image of yourself.

~the 'name' tags ~

the name of a person in the photo
stewart
boris etc. etc.


~the 'location' tags~

toronto
edmonton etc. etc.

a 'vacation' tag can group all the images taken away from home.

steev adds: "For those that havent already heard, its now possible to specify the location the image was taken at using special tags called geotags. You can find more info here: www.geobloggers.com

The advantage of geotagging is people can search for images by location, and the points the photos were taken can be plotted on a map.

there is a flickr group here: flickr.com/groups/geotagging for discussing geotagging"

this list is just a start, and just a suggestion.

feedback on this tag structure is encouraged.
9:11PM, 3 May 2004 PDT (permalink)

← prev 1 2
(1 to 100 of 138 replies)
view photostream

rvacapinta says:

Instead of "self portrait" may I suggest "me" :)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

you might have noticed that i was already using both the "self portrait" tag and a "me" tag.

i've switched around my earlier entry to acknowledge using "me" instead.

me likes "me"

any other suggestions?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

George is a group administrator George says:

I like "me" too :)

Here's a link to the list of tags.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

okay .. so some issues with the CG tag, and how it relates to images filtered in photoshop or other photo editing software.

the way i am treating the issue is as follows:

a] filtered in photoshop and its ilk = not CG, but rather PHOTO

b] heavily altered and composited photographs in such a program = CG

c] not photographic at all= definately CG

----------

this is a trickiy distinction, and i am pretty sure this isn't the best solution yet .. so any thoughts would be appreciated.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

some people suggested a 'porn' tag should be mixed in there.

thoughts?
ages ago (permalink)

Skrik [deleted] says:

I prefer the "NSFW" tag to the "Porn" tag.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

cool. i'm changing it.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

I think that's a poor idea - a picture can be not safe for work and still not be sexual or pornographic. Though, given arbitrary input, it's unlikely many people will stick to any but the most obvious of tags listed here, let alone follow the more abstract instructions for ones like CG.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Metahari says:

Perhaps some of the more popular tags could have checkboxes to get some people started.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

matt, that would be why we changed porn to 'unsafe' - and why i am using short explanitory sentences to clarify what each tag could mean.

ultimately, people can use whatever tags they want .. but if they want their images in the largest pool, this could be a way to go.

yes .. building a standard like this is optimistic at best. but the payoff, which is searching by theme, is pretty cool ~ so people seem to be giving it a shot.

and click 'CG' .. i am not the only one using it.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

rvacapinta says:

Standards are good. Some will stick, some won't. Ultimately, if you want your photos seen, you'll naturally go with the more popular tag. There might at first be a 'sf' tag and a 'san francisco' tag but one will win out by sheer numbers.

To this end, it would be useful to have an immediate feedback mechanism for this: say i use 'sf' then get told "This tag is shared by 10 photos" then i might switch it to 'san francisco' and get told "this tag is shared by 1500 photos'...you get the idea, something like that.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

Does anyone remember meta content="keyword" and how searching on those completely backfired?

These are not arguments against using a tagging system - they are reasons to make it more robust. Of the tags above, which ones are relatively obvious from the tag name itself? Of the ones requiring explanations, how ambiguous are they - what variety of images would they admit if used ideally? Which tags can be reasonably composed (e.g. "unfound photo" or "snagged unfound drawing")? Which tags bear ontological relationships (e.g. "porn" would be "unsafe", though not always the other way around)?

Could we create, communally, a tag ontology? What's the role of notes in relation to tags? How can we deal with underspecification (I, for one, likely won't add "unfound" to the 95% of my photos to which it applies), or make it less prevalent?

In short: coming up with a list of tags is simple. Getting a group people to mostly agree on them is somewhat harder. Making them useful to people outside that group is the hardest part of all, and that's what I think we should be concentrating on.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

styler* says:

i'd be keen on that matt
i also bet there are lots of people like me who are holding off on tags until we see some trends.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Meer says:

These are really good ideas. And I even care enough about it that I'm going to retag my stream soon. :/ As an example of something mentioned above, I initially didn't like the tag "me" and used my name instead, but that's one thing I'll change to be more consistent. And yes, I'm embarassed how big the "meer" tag is. ;)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

matt, you point is taken. it's also why no one is claiming that this is a standard yet. it is "just a start, and just a suggestion" ~ i certainly didn't expect something i wrote up in an hour to be a robust standard .. that's why i posted it here and why it's open to changes .. if we had a wiki, i'd rather use that.

i would be very interested in your specific suggestions regarding changes to the structure.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Josh Mishell says:

why not have a flickrwiki? or flickrwikr.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

i completely forgot about this tag! more than any other, this is the tag i'd like to check out the most.

NOTES.

kinopravda! please add this one to your 'noted' images .. i wanna seeum.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

What about having things like the author's handle and 'notes' (if they exist) being automatically applied to public images?

PS: not having 'notes' where you want it is a good example of what I called underspecification.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Kallese is a group administrator Kallese says:

why have a notes tag when notes cannot be seen on the web-side and tags cannot be seen on the app-side?

Or is this supposed to merge later on.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

notes CAN be seen on the webside already.

not sure if the opposite will bethe case.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Eric is a group administrator Eric says:

Tags can be edited in the client now also.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

i can't see where to edit the tags in the client.

*checks his specs.*
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Eric is a group administrator Eric says:

O, hee! I did not deploy that yet. :)

Very shortly I will deploy that change, plus an interim change to photo windows in the client that will allow you to see notes at the top of a photo.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

www.flickr.com/photos/striatic/tags/

as you can see on the left, george has linked to this thread as a kind of ad-hoc standards page.

also, i have seen the emergence of a "flag as 'may offend'" link .. so you can mark other people's images. not exactly sure if the 'unsafe' tag is necessary now.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

added "cameraphone" and "live music" ~ due to popular demand.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

bumpy
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bloo says:

Hey thx thats handy.

One QUESTION here: Is there a way to specify tags while uploading pix via mail?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

nope.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

yeoz is a group administrator yeoz says:

well, not yet at least.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bloo says:

:(
I was just about to forward some heavy mail from gmail.. i will wait :P i don't wanna tag pic by pic.. im too lazy-
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Stewart is a group administrator Stewart says:

In the bright and glorious future that awaits us, there will be even better ways of tagging multiple pics.

(Also - did you just want a single set tag on your images? Like 'fromemail' or something? Or individual tags per image? Right now, the subject becomes the title and the body becomes the description ... and there are only so many parts of an email ;)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

i have some suggestions for how Flickr could break up emails to allow for email by email tagging the you can read on this flickrIdeas thread.

but it is highly tangental to this central thread, which is more about suggesting new tags.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bmann says:

Me doesn't like "me". I mean, if I tag all the pictures of myself with "me", but everyone else tags them with "Boris", then I have two sets of tags that both represent me, and one of them isn't global.

But in the bright and glorious future, we'll be able to drag and drop contacts onto pictures to specify who people are.

And "notes" is already in the system -- system "knows" if the image has notes attached, just like it knows if there are comments. As well as showing how many comments, should show how many "notes".
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

ME has an upside, which is that if you search 'ME' across everyone's tags ~ you get a slew of images of flickrFolk, a massive group portrait of flickr.

if you do search for 'BORIS' across everyone's tags, you would get a reproduction of the result searching only within 'Boris' tags .. with maybe some extra borises thrown in.

these are both useful searches. i would suggest using the both 'ME' tag AND the 'whatevertheheckyournameis' tag.

as for NOTES ~ yes, the system recognises knows the notes are there, but you can't search for 'all images with notes', and the tag is the next best thing.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bmann says:

I'm saying that you should be able to search for notes...without the tag. I'm sure our Benevolent Flickr Overlords™ will see fit to include many such different slices.

Like, "Show me all pictures with more than X comments". Same for notes.

I welcome our new photographic masters.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bmann says:

Teaching my dad how to use Flickr. He capitalized his tags, and "Flower" isn't the same as "flower".

Can we have caps-ignorant searching? (It's early for me, my words don't work yet).
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Josh Mishell says:

I have a question.

If we get to use spaces in our tags, such as "photos I took", why don't they show up as that in the tags. wouldn't it be the same as telling everyone to just avoid spaces (photositook) and easier for them?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bmann says:

You're not likely to change the behaviour of unsophisticated users. In fact, I know it's going to be pretty hard (if not impossible) to get my dad to consistently put "quotation marks" around phrases. The same thing for spaces -- people will naturally use spaces.

The tag entry screen needs some work, and in fact shouldn't lead to the exact same page as the "edit this photo" link (my dad first overwrote the description field instead of entering tags).
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

it isn't caps ignorant? weird. 'ME' searches 'me' and 'ME'.. maybe you have to mix caps to mess it up.

no .. i just tried '/Me/' and it picks up images tagged ME and me.

flickr.com/photos/tags/Flower/
and
flickr.com/photos/tags/flower/
and
flickr.com/photos/tags/FLOWER/
all give the same results to me. further, i tagged an image 'flower' then 'Flower' and then 'FLOWER'. with each change i checked the search and the image was still in these lists.

i posted this thread in central instead of flickrideas to avoid it turning into a feature request fest, but i guess we can roll with it.

personally, because tags aren't tag sensitive, i put all my 'standard' tags {the ones listed in this thread} in ALL CAPS and any unique tags in small caps.

this way if you browse through my images, you'll know what tags will likely connect to other images.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bmann says:

Weird. I *swear* it didn't work this morning.

On feature request: Would be nice if there were actual articles/how-tos/whatever so you could post stuff like this permanently.

Maybe run a simple little Flickr Blog on the site? We'll happily run blog.flickr.com with Blogware.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

hm .. maybe flickr could use an 3rd party site to do that. something not associated with flickr that has articles and such.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

feather says:

bmann: a wiki would be nice :) software documentation screams wiki. ('wikiii, wikiiii!')

though it's feature heavy, i'd recommend moin-moin since i know of some developers working on hooking wiki into other applications using XML-RPC, and hey, it might be flickrable at some point(?)

(otherwise my fave wiki software tools are oddmuse (perl) for simplicity, and modularity; and pmwiki (php)- it's easy to template.)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

actually, a wiki would be perfect .. GNE {another ludicorp project} had a dedicated WIKI with GNExus and saw a ton of use while GNE was .. well .. seeing a ton of use.

ostensibly, GNExus supports flickr too, but it hasn't seen much use in that capacity.

i could talk to jake {outis} who set up the thing and see if we couldn't differentiate the flickr part from the gne part ~ and then whip up some wiki spirit.

starting up a completely new wiki might also be desirable ~ although someone would have to bite the bullet, stick their hand up in the air and host the damn thing.

this topic demands a new thread, and you'll be able to find it here, so respond there, not here.
ages ago (permalink)

Rog [deleted] says:

well I did not read all the messages before posting this but: selfpotrait and me are not necessarily the same thing - I have some sefpotraits of myself (definitely me) but I have also a snagged self portrait by robert mapplethorpe, which is not me.
119 months ago (permalink)

nthdegx [deleted] says:

In short: coming up with a list of tags is simple. Getting a group people to mostly agree on them is somewhat harder. Making them useful to people outside that group is the hardest part of all, and that's what I think we should be concentrating on.

The first step is to create the list and that is what Striatic has done here. Good work, Stri - I think your list is pretty comprehensive :)
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

no, maplethorpe's image isn't 'me' .. but 'me', as a tag, ended up not really being synonymous with selfportrait at all.

for instance, when my girlfriend took a picture of me and i posted it, i tagged it with 'me'.

'me' often IS a selfportrait, however, and examples of uploading someone else's self portrait to flickr should be pretty rare, especially with ludicorp's "we don't want to mirror the web" mantra. i think using 'self poratrait' where it is appropriate, as Rog has done, is a good thing .. although i don't think i will add it into the ad-hoc standard because it might confuse things.

and thanks for the support Hex. i've seen a number of these tags adopted outside the group now. i also think that we're doing a good job at incorporating new tags as they are suggested .. but i do wish more people would step up in that regard.

yes, there are problems with this list .. and yes, some of these tags are much less useful than others .. what i like best is how people will adopt the part of the standard that is most useful to them and forego the rest.
119 months ago (permalink)

nthdegx [deleted] says:

to me selfportrait suggests formality - so perhaps an image taken with that sort of mood would benefit from a selfportrait tag, and the me tag too. but as you say - whatever is most useful for the user, i guess :)
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

a bit of a bump, because this is useful for explaining some of the tags you'll see around here.
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Drift Words says:

I feel that the interface, rather than any document, should be The Place to educate the user as to the wisest choice.

One way would be to demarcate the tagging screen into a number of areas according to the important semantic distinctions that the tags embody. (having made a proper study of the prevailing practice).

Have checkboxes or pulldowns to select from the common tags. Make certain top-level tags compulsory. Edit fields for User-defined tags. Show the tag-frequency of each candidate word somehow.

Above all, have a tag-librarian (she could be a robot) to keep it all fresh not only at the interface end but at the database side (sending out requests to re-tag the misspellings and mis-uses: e.g. Thamse to Thames, Porn to NSFW if such is the policy).
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

drift, many of these suggestions have already been made.

in chat i {and others} made a similar suggestion, in particular regarding default tags ~ one of the reasons given for not implementing tags in this way was that it is more important to let users define their own tagging systemS rather than imposing a single system from the top down.

keep in mind that the 'common tags' need a place to emerge from in the first place.

also, this is not the place to make feature suggestions regarding tags. i highly encourage you to make these suggestions, but please do so in flickr ideas.

further, this is not an official document of any kind. i'd just like to take the oppourtunity to make doubly clear that this is merely a page of SUGGESTIONS of tags one could use. it is not meant as an an education in 'the best possible way to tag your images', nor was it ever intended to be.
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Drift Words says:

OK thanks I'll go over there and pop a suggestion, not about tag-content per se, but about information types. At the moment fear the tags will turn into compost (through not scaling) unless some light order is imposed.
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

drift, read the 'tagography' thread. i assure you that your fear is unfounded {so to speak}.

tags can certainly be improved, but i hardly see them turning to compost.
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Drift Words says:

I had a vision (bear with me here) of the nice green free-festival field, happy campers frolicking, making music ... all turning into cholera-ridden mush at the second afternoon after half a million showed up. The organisers needed a few duckboards and rope fences at the beginning.
119 months ago (permalink)

mattbirt [deleted] says:

I think there should be a designation for a group of people in a picture. After all, we have a designation for one person in a photo ("portrait").

How about "group" for a group of people?

matt
119 months ago (permalink)

mattbirt [deleted] says:

Additionally, I think it's important to tag photos based on who shot the picture. I don't get too specific, but I do designate whether I took it or someone else did. Keep in mind, this would only be important within photos that fit the "unfound" designation. Obviously snagged photos were taken by someone else.

For photos taken by me, I label them with "mine."

For photos taken by someone else, I label them with "other."

matt
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

these are good suggestions ~ i am going to add 'group' to the list.

'mine' i am a little unsure of, however. i think 'unfound' pretty much satisfies this need.

thoughts?

also, i am thinking of removing some tags from the list including "propaganda", "montage" and "unsafe".

again .. thoughts?
119 months ago (permalink)

mattbirt [deleted] says:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the tags of "unfound" and "snagged."

I was under the assumption that "unfound" photos were any photos that I uploaded myself, regardless of who actually took the picture (could have been me, could have been my dad, whatever). I was under the impression that "snagged" photos were photos that I've gotten from someone else on Flickr. Photos that someone else on Flickr sent me during a chat or through email.

If I am to understand you, photos that my father took, that I have on my computer and have uploaded myself to Flickr should be labeled "snagged"?

If that's the case, then I think there should be a tag for photos from taken by other people that you didn't upload yourself, but that you got through Flickr.

Does that make any sense?
119 months ago (permalink)

mattbirt [deleted] says:

I see that it doesn't make any sense.

I didn't realize that the photos sent to me from a person through Flickr can only be kept in my shoebox, not in my photostream. Which makes sense, as they are not really my property, and if they were kept in my photostream, would mean that Flickr was giving up more server space for the same picture posted in two different locations.

This also helps me to understand striatic's point about using "striatic" as one of his tags. That makes more sense now.

Either that, or now I've really confused things.

matt
119 months ago (permalink)

mattbirt [deleted] says:

Okay. The snagged label description says the following: snagged images are those created by other people that you have uploaded into flickr.

So if an image was taken by my father, or my friend Mark, it was created by another person. So I have labeled any photo that I did not take myself with a "snagged" tag.

But when I search by clicking on "snagged," everyone else's snagged photos but mine are advertisements, famous people, funny images taken from the net, etc.

And then I read striatic's explanation of the unfound vs. snagged label in another thread in response to Stewart, and now I see that snagged vs. unfound was created because when Flickr first started, chat was a bigger deal around here, and the quality of stored photos was not very good. Thus, people used Flickr more for exchanging funny/interesting pictures found on the net rather than for posting their own photos.

So the problem for me remains: if unfound images are images I created (that I have taken), and snagged images are images taken from the net and elsewhere, what is the label for photos with people I know in them (and oftentimes with me in them) that have been taken by family and friends that I own?

There seems to be a difference between snagged photos, and the type of photo I'm describing in the paragraph above.

Maybe I'm the only one who cares about this, but I think there needs to be three labels here, not two.

Unfound (I like "by me" better): images taken/created by me (this allows me and others to search for all photos that have been taken from my perspective)

"not by me"/other (or some other such lable): images taken by someone other than me (friend, family member, photo found on the sidewalk, some other person who took the photo but not for advertising/media purposes)

Snagged: images taken from somewhere "out there." Not created by me. Typically humorous, commercialized, depicting famous people, stolen from an online newspaper or zine, etc. (this allows people to see images that were significant to me that I took from the net)

Under the current system, if I ask myself the following question, I have no popular tag to click on to find the results: "I like this striatic guy. He seems like he has a pretty sharp eye. What do I click on to find photos taken by him?"

The answer, there is no tag to click on.

*********************************
Here's an illustration:

#1 This is a photo of my nephew that I took:


Sad Avery

What should be the tag for this one?

#2 This is a picture of my brother that someone else took:


Mikey

What should be the tag for this one?

#3 This is a picture of the band Beulah that I got off their website:


Beulah: Jesus Loves You

What should be the tag for this one?

If any of these photos share the same tag, then the tag system is not descriptive enough.
119 months ago (permalink)

nthdegx [deleted] says:

Really, tag standards are good for web geeks that like to surf. This has to be secondary to Granny tagging her images in a way that make sense to her so she can look at and share those she wants to at a given time with a given group at a later date.

It's great that these threads exist so that people can read them, and see how others are doing it, and conform if they like. I don't think anyone should lose any sleep over it, though.
119 months ago (permalink)

nthdegx [deleted] says:

"So the problem for me remains: if unfound images are images I created (that I have taken), and snagged images are images taken from the net and elsewhere, what is the label for photos with people I know in them (and oftentimes with me in them) that have been taken by family and friends that I own?"

This is a good point, though - and my response what be to simply state how *I* define snagged and unfound in my head. To me your family's photos fall firmly into the unfound category. Snagged to me is shorthand for "pulled from the web". Unfound means somehow created, and I wouldn't limit that description to "created by the uploader", but perhaps also by their friends or family.

Don't sweat it, though. I'll shortly be dropping the tags unfound and snagged as with the welcome direction in which flickr is heading, the tags will be largely redundant. Snagged images will hopefully largely cease to be, and all uploads will be "unfound" in one way or another.

I think that the answer to your question would be *unfound* *unfound* *snagged*. To me that's the tag system working. If that doesn't work for you, then you need to devise a third tag so that photos you have taken are differentiated from photos your family have taken. As I've said, what is most important about tags is that people make them work for themselves.
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

*unfound*, *snagged* and *snagged*

according to the way i've written up the standard, your family members are just as OTHER from you as some guy on the web.

this allows "I like this striatic guy. He seems like he has a pretty sharp eye. What do I click on to find photos taken by him?" to be easily answered.

the link to click onto see the images that i make is: flickr.com/photos/striatic/tags/unfound/ eventually, when the devs get around to implementing AND based sorting, you'd use UNFOUND and PHOTO to look at the images i create.

i don't see this as a descriptive failing, although the word snagged does imply a kind of 'appropriation' that isn't as obvious when you are using a relative's images. still, if "not by me" helps sort your images, nothing in the list precludes your use of such a tag.

changing to the three tag system that you suggest presents problems. i wager that "humorous, commercialized, depicting famous people, stolen from an online newspaper or zine" is more difficult to determine than "created by other people that you have uploaded into flickr".

now .. originally .. when i first wrote up this standard {the first clean draft ~ no outside influences} "unfound" didn't exist. Instead there was "created" and "snagged". Holloway and others started using the unfound tag .. and "created" wasn't really taking off so i made the switch. {personally, i had to retag about 150 of my images at the time, so it was a big switch ;)}. you can read this as saying that USAGE shapes the standard as well.

now here's a really tough classification quandry:

flickr.com/photo.gne?id=96227

versus

flickr.com/photo.gne?id=93797

you tell me what you think each image image should be tagged .. "unfound" or "snagged" ..
119 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

mharrsch says:

As someone who tries to promote history education, many of my images have a "historical period" component. When I used a regular database to store images, I used a field for century and BC or AD so images of subjects from a particular century could be found. I've given this some thought with Flickr and I was wondering if a tag like 1cBC (1st century BC) would work well. Thoughts, anyone?
118 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

hm .. well, it sounds as if 1cBC would make a good tag for personal use, although as a global tag, i am not sure.

i can't see anyone else coming up wist 1cBC on their own .. but then again, i can't see many people thinking to use 1stCenturyBC either.

why not just pick a date format and see if other people see you images and follow along .. i think 1cBC is fine in that regard.
118 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Drift Words says:

Slap me with a wet fish if you've heard this before, but here's where a content-aware tag structure would come in handy. So that your 15cBC would map to his/her 15thCent to 1400CE. Heck, you could even have it correlate the Muslim, Chinese, etc systems.
118 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

Three more cheers for ontology!
118 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Drift Words says:

An article on why taxonomies are bad, citing Flickr as a flat-namespace sucess:

www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/20/34OPstrategic_1.html

My suspicions are to do with scaling to greater numbers of users, and maintenance of tag relevance over time.
118 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

aa1970 says:

Taxonomies are bad because they impose pre-determined relationships instead of discovering the ones that exist. Flickr is great because it has very few assumptions when it comes to tags. One way of imposing structure without compromising this flexibility is to dynamically cluster the tags, sorta like clusty.com/ does it.
115 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

matt says:

Taxonomies are bad because they impose pre-determined relationships instead of discovering the ones that exist.


Taxonomies are good because they will define actual relationships on sparse data, rather than arbitrarily "discovering" inaccurate ones.

Just a reminder.
115 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

i updated the main list to keep with the times.

i got rid of "unfound" and "snagged" and i removed the reference to the "unsafe" tag.

the "genre tags" are still there, despite flickr's TOS, because i do think that people should keep uploading non-photos and marking them as 'may offend'. there genre tags are EXTREMELY useful personal tags, or at least they have been for me. if you need to track down that old screenshot you uploaded for a bug report. or one of the sketches you uploaded once. good stuff.

"photo" is still questionable .. one the one hand, it's seemingly redundant .. but on the other hand, if someone wanted to write a script that only looked at actual photos and not any drawings or logos that slipped past the filter, there are over 22k within that tag to work with.

anyway .. i'm much happier with it as a basic primer now. i do suspect that most people won't bother with the genre tags, however.

i've been thinking about a new post about tags, too .. i'll probably write it up in the next week or so.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

BenODen says:

About taxonomies... These tags seem like just the start. These are details that would be lost if you had no taxonomy.

I would say that other tags about the subject matter of a picture should be encouraged, but you can't make a list of these. Person names (hey, private tags for full names would be interesting) place names, season, month, object names, major elements like sky and ocean and mountain, and on and on. I suppose it's possible to get carried away, but tags beyond the taxonomy do enable grouping discovery that Amr describes.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

m.a.x says:

Interesting thread, I've never seen it before.

As a now-completely-irrelevent sidenote, for a long time I couldn't search for the 'me' tag in some places because it was too short. I ended up adding 'ofme' so I could search more easily.

All seems to work now, so I'll probably discontinue.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

BenODen says:

Wow, an unexpendable use for the replace tag function!
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

yes .. we can batch delete or replace tags now.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

BenODen says:

Wait, delete? (Scrounge scrounge) Yeah, that's a cool page! I've missed seeing that one before!!

Is there a way to add, replace or remove tags on a subset of images? Say remove forest tags from images tagged mountain, but not ones without that tag? (I think this could be useful, certainly adding a tag to a group of images would be very interesting, especially by set, to replicate the set taxonomy in tagspace..)
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

add, yes .. replace, no.

go to "edit as a batch" and then the "batch operations" tab.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

BenODen says:

Bonus, I see that there, I'd seen that before I think, but forgotten about it.

Too bad about replace or delete, but creeping features. You can still do it in a handful of steps, though. Add a temporary (unique) tag to all the photos you want to retag later, then delete the original tag and rename the temporary tag back to the original name. That's not so bad I guess.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

RaeAllen says:

It would be interesting to see some sort of centralised tagging library.

I've used the International Press Telecommunications Council standards (see www.iptc.org/NewsCodes/) in the past .. particularly their subject categories. It's a simple structure with basically 17 top level descriptions, but if you have a look, combined with the second and third level qualifiers it becomes quite complex.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Dave Ward Photography says:

hehe... What a great thread. It's interesting seeing how people wrestle with folksonomies and the marvellous disorder of it. One of the most interesting and frustrating things about folksonomy is the simple fact of different languages around the world. Obviously, not everybody is comfortable working in English. I haven't really looked into it, but presumably there must be Japanese Flickr users who prefer to tag their photos in Japanese, Korean users who prefer Korean tags, etc. One of my friends in the Netherlands often tags her photos with Dutch words, or sometimes with misspelled English words. I guess the point is, there's no way to standardize a system that relies on folksonomy for tagging. And if it was standardized, it wouldn't be true folksonomy--and it probably wouldn't be as flexible.

Still, I think it would be really nice if some tags were automatically applied. For example, some time ago I suggested that images could be checked for their color values, and then automatically tagged with either "color" or "bw"/"black and white."
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

zeman says:

A few tips if your location tagging and want your images to show up on the flickr world map.

Tag all your photos with the closest city and country they were taken in.

If you've taken photo's in the United States please tag your photo's with the city and state they were taken in.

Use "England", "Wales" and "Scotland" rather than "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain".
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Dave Ward Photography says:

I see a lot of people applying the tag "mappr." Is that helpful? Does it "do" anything? Just wondering if I should start adding that tag for any reason.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

ecormany says:

does anyone have a good tag for photos taken with your camera, but not by you, e.g. when you're in some tourist locale and hand off your camera to a complete stranger and ask "hey, will you take a picture of me in front of [x place]?"
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

REALJimBob says:

Attempting to 'codify' my own tag behaviours in my profile at the moment. Based intially on the thoughts of Striatic above, but trying to apply/extend them into my own needs. Comments appreciated.

And yes, pro cras, it does cover the situation you mention right above (although that was 2 months ago).
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Vaguely Artistic says:

DISCLAIMER: As someone who not only hasn't had the time to fully explore the nuances of tags but sometimes even forgets the tags altogether, I may be missing the obvious :)

What I've always wanted is a tag selection process akin to e-Bay's category selection process. When you put an item up for auction, you are prompted to select a category for your item from a list of categories and sub-categories. I want to sell a Simpsons jelly glass from France. I select "Entertainment Memorabilia" which I narrow down to "Television Memoroabilia". Since my jelly glass does not fit in any of the next group of sub-categories, I select "Other". In the end, there are no bids on my item.

I try to sell it again, but this time instead of choosing from my own pre-defined assumptions of which category it belongs to, I use the "Enter item keywords to find a category" search function to find categories for me, based on previous auctions of similar items. I now have these category options presented to me:

Collectibles > Advertising > Food & Restaurant > Jam, Jelly, Peanut Butter (8%)

Toys & Hobbies > TV, Movie, Character Toys > Simpsons > Homer (8%)

Collectibles > Housewares & Kitchenware > Kitchenware > Molds (7%)

Collectibles > Breweriana, Beer > Drinkware, Steins > Glasses > US > Other Brands (6%)

Collectibles > Pez, Keychains, Promo Glasses > Promo Glasses (6%)

Pottery & Glass > Glass > Glassware > Other Glassware (4%)

Jewelry & Watches > Loose Beads > Lampwork, Crystal & Glass > Other Glass (3%)

Toys & Hobbies > TV, Movie, Character Toys > Other (3%)

Toys & Hobbies > TV, Movie, Character

Toys > Simpsons > Other (3%)

Now I learn that not only is there a dedicated category for jelly glasses -- I had no idea! -- but that the majority of them are being sold there. I can also choose to list my item in another category to reach more people. This time, my glass sells because this is where people were looking for them all along.

Wouldn't this work here, as well? You could enter a description of your photo and see what tags others are using. As certain tags became more standardized, their percentage would increase and eventually the lesser-used tags would fade (although not disapear.)

This sounds way too obvious.... I must be missing something :)
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Laserone ☆ Lauren says:

I remember a heated discussion here a while ago about how people shouldn't tell other people how to tag. The uniqueness of how different people tag is what makes tagging unique [(redundant, I know)]. Also, a person may tag things for their own personal use and not the general public's, i.e. a picture of my mom tagged "ireland" makes sense to me if it's taken in ireland, and too bad if other people are confused by it. [If i want to use 'ireland' vs. 'laseronesireland', that's up to me. I shouldn't have to type more characters to please the rest of the entire world. And I want my photos to be public because I want lots of friends and family to view them, and no, not everybody has or even wants, a flickr account.] Tags serve more than one purpose, it's not all about 'you', the public. Personally, I think it's wrong to tell people how to tag. But that's just my $0.02

[edited to add]
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

this isn't telling people how to tag, it's just, you know .. a suggestion.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

kirstenpdx says:

what about the segment of the flickr population that doesn't know what a "tag" is and really could care less?
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

what about the segment of the flickr population that doesn't know what a "tag" is and really could care less?

i suppose that we could suggest that they use tags.

or not.

tags are pretty invaluable once you have a large volume of photos on flickr and need to find something quick. the fewer photos you have, the less valuable they are.

of course, if you don't start tagging at the outset, it's a chore to go back and re-tag everything.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

kirstenpdx says:

perhaps a tool could be created in "organize" where you could select a whole group of photos and tag them with one word...
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

kirstenpdx says:

i wish there was a way to tell how many "views" or hits a tag gets. sometimes i have a photo that jets up quickly for views and i have no idea why.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

perhaps a tool could be created in "organize" where you could select a whole group of photos and tag them with one word...

this already exists with "edit as a batch" and then "batch operations".
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

dopiaza says:

this already exists with "edit as a batch" and then "batch operations".

Yes, all you need to do is to get a page that has that particular selection of photos and then choose edit as batch. How do you get those photos all on one page? Well, giving them all the same tag is the easiest way. To do that, all you need to do is to get a page that has that particular selection of photos and then choose edit as batch...

Wait, isn't that where we came in?
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Vaguely Artistic says:

Tags are pretty invaluable once you have a large volume of photos on flickr and need to find something quick. the fewer photos you have, the less valuable they are.

Interesting.... I've been doing the opposite. I use my sets to organize my photos for me and tags to keep my photos organized within Flickr. Now that I have a cameraphone I'm taking pictures with a wider array of subjects and have found myself with an ever-growing "misc." set.

This thread has certainly motivated me to sit down and really take the time to harness the power of tags.

One thing I'm unclear of, though, is how group streams work in relation to tgas (if at all.) I get that tagging photos will enable people who are searching for particular tags to find your photos, but isn't targeting specific groups of interest to add your photos to also an important tool? My tendency when searching for photos in general is to first look for groups that might have what I'm looking for (say, photos of Ireland) instead of weeding through photos of Kathy Ireland with the "ireland" tag.

I guess I see tagging and grouping as inter-realted. Much to learn, much to learn....
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

striatic is a group administrator striatic says:

Interesting.... I've been doing the opposite. I use my sets to organize my photos for me and tags to keep my photos organized within Flickr. Now that I have a cameraphone I'm taking pictures with a wider array of subjects and have found myself with an ever-growing "misc." set.

i've noticed a lot of people doing this.

it works well, to a point .. but sometimes there is one photo in my stream that i'll need to find and typing in one word to find it is easier than scrolling around my sets.

also, i think sets are best to direct people to photos .. but not to comprehensively organise stuff.

so the fewer sets you have, the better they are at directing people to the stuff you'd like them to see the most.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

kirstenpdx says:

thanks striatic...
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

rvacapinta says:

I remember a heated discussion here a while ago about how people shouldn't tell other people how to tag.

Keep in mind when this thread was started: just over a year ago! Tags were completely new and everyones first reactions was "huh?" Striatic was just proposing some guidelines to get everyone started.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

langenberg says:

why do people tag topv111?
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

DWinton says:

this group:

flickr.com/groups/top-v/
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

steeev says:

For those that havent already heard, its now possible to specify the location the image was taken at using special tags called geotags. You can find more info here: www.geobloggers.com

The advantage of geotagging is people can search for images by location, and the points the photos were taken at can be plotted on a map.

there is a flickr group here: flickr.com/groups/geotagging for discussing geotagging
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

langenberg says:

thanx DWinton
109 months ago (permalink)

← prev 1 2
(1 to 100 of 138 replies in Tagging it up ~ some suggestions for tagging your images.)